DEMOCRATS: The war is a quagmire!
REPUBLICANS: No it isn’t.
DEMOCRATS: The war is unwinnable!
REPUBLICANS: No it isn’t.
DEMOCRATS: Bush lied to get us into this unnecessary war!
REPUBLICANS: No he didn’t.
DEMOCRATS: By answering our charges, you are committing an unconscionable partisan smear campaign!
REPUBLICANS: No we aren’t.
DEMOCRATS: By accusing the Bush admin of high treason with no evidence other than our personal distaste for him combined with our own hubristic self-righteousness, we are merely engaging in legitimate dissent!
REPUBLICANS: No, you aren’t.
DEMOCRATS: We support the troops!
REPUBLICANS: No you don’t.
DEMOCRATS: By demanding their immediate return from this evil and illegal war, we are showing a genuine concern for the welfare of American military personnel!
REPUBLICANS: No you aren’t.
DEMOCRATS: NOT ONE MORE AMERICAN SOLDIER DEAD FOR BUSH’S LIES!
REPUBLICANS: All right, let’s vote on it then. Show us how strongly-held your principles are; put your money where your mouths are. Let’s have a vote, right here, right now.
DEMOCRATS: NO FAAAAAIIIIRRR!!!
REPUBLICANS: Thought so.
Update! Rick says:
Watching the debate has been fun. The Democrats are twisting, twisting, slowly in the wind as Republicans skewer them by reading emails from soldiers at the front pleading with their Congressman to allow them to finish the job.
Not too many military emails from Democrats. Just a lot of twisted, angry faces as Republicans are going to force them to tell their base of Kossacs, Moorites, and Moveoners that all their tough talk about getting out of Iraq is just that – talk.
And, from another post: “We’ve had so many “turning points” in this war that we’ve damn near gone around in a circle.” We have indeed; thanks to the Democrats’ “forward to the past” vision for the future (“We have to get back to where we were…” — one can almost see Kerry in sparkly red slippers and a flower-print dress, clicking his heels together and fervently chanting “There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home” in that patrician-Lurch voice of his), we’ve come all the way back around to arguing about whether we should have a war we’ve been in for four years already.
Yes, I do mean four.
Updated update! It would seem that some stock-taking on What It All Means might be in order here. The Dems have shown us a few aspects of both the nature of their “case” against the war and of their own character that they probably would rather have remained hidden. Consider:
- The Dems contend that there was no legitimate basis for war with Iraq, that the whole enterprise is, as a certain someone recently said, “a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”
- The Dems contend that Bush lied to get us into the war, so that it not only is “flawed” and “wrapped in illusion,” but is an out-and-out con job, one that’s already cost a couple of thousand American lives
- The Dems have repeatedly insisted how staunch their support for American servicemen and women is, how their support for this or any war is predicated first and foremost on their concern for how our men and women in uniform will be affected by it
- The Dems contend that the war is worsening terrorism worldwide, providing a breeding ground for terrorists where one had not previously existed before, and providing an excuse for terrorists to attack Americans both in Iraq and elsewhere
- The Dems contend that the war is enormously unpopular both here and in Iraq, and that the primary concern of most ordinary Americans and Iraqis alike is not winning the war but ending it
They refuse to vote to end the abominable thing when given the chance.
Now, what lessons do we take from this? Do we understand this to mean that the Democrats are low, mean, crawly things who lack the courage to vote their consciences even when it can’t possibly do them any political harm (which we must assume from the last bullet point above)?
Or do we take this to mean that most if not everything the Dems have said about this war is a lie, and that they know it quite well?
The vote yesterday, if you take the Democrats’ presentation of their views on the war at face value, was a no-lose proposition for them. They don’t have a majority in Congress, so it was never going to pass anyway. They could have voted to end this war immediately — taken the moral high road, according to their definition of it — without ever having to worry about facing any possible consequences at all. If the war takes a disastrous turn and ends up being an unequivocal mistake a few years down the road, well, hey, they tried to tell us. If things go well and end up proving them wrong, well, hey, no harm, no foul. Voting to cut and run immediately was a perfect way for the Dems to have their cake and eat it, too.
And they still couldn’t bring themselves to do it. Why not?
Could it be political considerations: that they know the antiwar position, despite all their MSM polls showing otherwise, remains an unpopular one in mainstream America? That ordinary Iraqis are happy and proud to be making the steps toward freedom and self-governance that the self-involved irresponsibility of Today’s Democrat would deny them? That the soldiers seeing this new nation develop take pride in their work, believe it to be going well, and that the families of these men and women see a very different war than the Dems and their MSM stooges have presented to the world?
Or is it just a late-breaking spasm of a faulty and little-used moral compass, the sure knowledge that cutting and running from Iraq would be a clear betrayal of the United States armed forces, one along the lines of the Vietnam knife in the back, and in the end such a thing was too heinous for even a Democrat raised on fairy tales of hippie heroism in the 60’s to contemplate?
Does their refusal to end the Iraq “quagmire” indicate that they know they’ve been hysterically and dishonestly exaggerating how badly things are going all along — really, every single last step of the way, since before the war even started?
Were the Democrats played for suckers by their more enthusiastically radical partners in Leftism in the mainstream press and other places, led by the nose into an impossible position, one that there was simply no honorable way out of — in much the same way as they’ve tried to lead the nation itself into dishonor and defeat?
Or has their near-pathological reverence for “nuance” and their vaunted ability to be empathetic, to see all sides of a given issue, left them incapable of making a decision on anything?
Are they incompetent, cowardly, indecisive, or just dishonest?
An interesting couple of days, that’s for sure.